This post will serve as a brief discussion about what's going on, on the left, and why that's bad.

There are a lot of people in the Democratic party and especially in progressive movements who regard adherence to a strict orthodoxy (i.e. theology of progressivism) as the measure of a person's credibility as a person, and value as a member of that group. Thus, if you disagree, you're a bad person, or a conformist, or a fascist, bigot, racist, sexist, and whatever. This is how the postmodern left operates, and it's how a lot of very juvenile members of the Democratic party (pretty much from high school and college age on) get on with their lives. So, if we differ, in the slightest way, on virtually any topic, well, that's the basis for all kinds of personal attacks, vitriol, outrage and a whole lot of name calling.

For example, if I express any view other than that blacks are the perpetual victims of white aggression, I am a racist. If I have doubts that "rape culture" even exists, I'm a sexist. And to the extent that I deviate from any of these idiotic politically correct narratives (which are pretty much quasi-theological constructs that the intellectual left has erected to ensure ideological conformity, enforced by all kinds of hostility from members of the group), then I'm a bigot. (Note: these are people whose argumentative methods are functionally indistinguishable from, for example, the Catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition; i.e. if you don't agree with me, then you're just a terrible, horrible human being who will be damned to hell for all eternity, except, in this instance, it's not damnation that's on the line, but the "purgatory" of being subject to outlandish hostility as a result.) We're going to call this the "Andrea Dworkin" method of argumentation.

There are many members on this site like this. I can think of a few off the top of my head who I've interacted with, and talking politics with them is impossible because they go into "outrage mode" whenever you express any view that is incongruent with theirs. That modality of human interaction is counterproductive to progressivism's goals and objectives, and is therefore irrational.

The reason why that modality of interaction is unacceptable is because it drives people away from the left, and drives them into the Republican party. People like this are the reason, for example, that poor whites vote Republican at astonishingly high rates. People like that are why "liberal" became an unspeakable word in the 1990s, and why the Democratic party has such a hard time maintaining influence on the groups that it, on a rational level, should never even have to compete for.

It's also just totally a terrible way to interact with other people. I mean, if you can't interact with people without mocking their views (and there are some people's views who should be mocked, i.e. *actual* fascists, or *actual* bigots, like the WBC), and if you draw idiotic analogies between *actual* fascists or bigots and, like, average normal people engaged in political discourse then two things are going to happen: (1) no one is going to take you seriously outside your group, and (2) everyone outside your group is going to think you're just a blowhard who is out of touch with reality.

Just as I have derided such movements as #blacklivesmatter (for being spoiled, inarticulate children who conflate actual oppression--i.e. police brutality--with feigned oppression--i.e. Mizzou--whose methods disgrace the civil rights movement, specifically, and progressivism, more generally), so too does that same sword fall on those members of the left who act like Andrea Dworkin, and in so doing, disgrace progressivism. But, worse than simply looking like ostentatious blowhards, these are people who actively drive people into the Republican party, who *hate* people on the left, because their perception is that all liberals are snide, condescending @ssholes who look down on people who are like them. (And the truth is, that a lot of people on the left do... and I have certainly been no exception, when I was younger.)

The whole modality of "outrage" argumentation is just something that's got to stop. We should be able to have arguments where people on the left reasonably disagree, without jumping into these dumb conclusions like "If you disagree with me, then you're a bad person." (Note: being "wrong" does not mean that a person is a "bad person" in the event that this was lost on anyone.)

That kind of stupidity is what gave rise to such conflicts as the 100 years war, and the factionalist differences between the Sunnis and the Shias. It's completely uncivilized, which is ironic, given that the progressive left regards itself as the height of human civilization. Nothing could be more far from the truth.

And I say this as a sort of libertarian leftist: very fiscally and socially to the left. (Ironically, I'm more of a "classic" liberal than any of the conservatives who herald themselves as classic liberals, but that's beside the point.)

We should be able to reasonably disagree about trivialities, especially when we agree on the values that really matter (solidarity, community, fraternity, etc.).

There's something arbitrary about addressing this criticism to the left, when this is only one iteration of a pattern tied to the norms of our political discourse.

To the extent that you're right: There are appropriate and inappropriate uses of the terms sexist, racist, and bigoted. These words describe forms of biased inclination, pathologies of thought which preclude objective reasoning. That's why In such contexts where you've expressed an unpopular opinion that's based on disinterested reasoning and amenable to the same, to call it sexist, racist, or bigoted would be just an empty insult. People who use those words in such contexts either compensate for a lack of meaningful counterarguments -- they want to rebuke the views expressed even though they lack the evidence and vocabulary to do so -- or they simply don't grasp what the words mean and how they're appropriately applied.

But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite. This kind of brazen simplification is just what happens when you have to competitively market your ideology to a public whose interest, attention, and sympathy requires speaking in easily-to-digest, dramatic and unnuanced terms. So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

Perhaps it just suits you and your image better if you generalize and attack common use of your own ideology....calling oneself liberal while selectively criticizing exponents of the ideology creates a facade of objectivity. I'll grant that maintaining at least the pretense of independent thinking is a healthy check on the validity of one's own views, but don't think it isn't prone to error.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 12/13/2015 4:47:36 PM, YYW wrote:This post will serve as a brief discussion about what's going on, on the left, and why that's bad.

There are a lot of people in the Democratic party and especially in progressive movements who regard adherence to a strict orthodoxy (i.e. theology of progressivism) as the measure of a person's credibility as a person, and value as a member of that group. Thus, if you disagree, you're a bad person, or a conformist, or a fascist, bigot, racist, sexist, and whatever. This is how the postmodern left operates, and it's how a lot of very juvenile members of the Democratic party (pretty much from high school and college age on) get on with their lives. So, if we differ, in the slightest way, on virtually any topic, well, that's the basis for all kinds of personal attacks, vitriol, outrage and a whole lot of name calling.

For example, if I express any view other than that blacks are the perpetual victims of white aggression, I am a racist. If I have doubts that "rape culture" even exists, I'm a sexist. And to the extent that I deviate from any of these idiotic politically correct narratives (which are pretty much quasi-theological constructs that the intellectual left has erected to ensure ideological conformity, enforced by all kinds of hostility from members of the group), then I'm a bigot. (Note: these are people whose argumentative methods are functionally indistinguishable from, for example, the Catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition; i.e. if you don't agree with me, then you're just a terrible, horrible human being who will be damned to hell for all eternity, except, in this instance, it's not damnation that's on the line, but the "purgatory" of being subject to outlandish hostility as a result.) We're going to call this the "Andrea Dworkin" method of argumentation.

There are many members on this site like this. I can think of a few off the top of my head who I've interacted with, and talking politics with them is impossible because they go into "outrage mode" whenever you express any view that is incongruent with theirs. That modality of human interaction is counterproductive to progressivism's goals and objectives, and is therefore irrational.

The reason why that modality of interaction is unacceptable is because it drives people away from the left, and drives them into the Republican party. People like this are the reason, for example, that poor whites vote Republican at astonishingly high rates. People like that are why "liberal" became an unspeakable word in the 1990s, and why the Democratic party has such a hard time maintaining influence on the groups that it, on a rational level, should never even have to compete for.

It's also just totally a terrible way to interact with other people. I mean, if you can't interact with people without mocking their views (and there are some people's views who should be mocked, i.e. *actual* fascists, or *actual* bigots, like the WBC), and if you draw idiotic analogies between *actual* fascists or bigots and, like, average normal people engaged in political discourse then two things are going to happen: (1) no one is going to take you seriously outside your group, and (2) everyone outside your group is going to think you're just a blowhard who is out of touch with reality.

Just as I have derided such movements as #blacklivesmatter (for being spoiled, inarticulate children who conflate actual oppression--i.e. police brutality--with feigned oppression--i.e. Mizzou--whose methods disgrace the civil rights movement, specifically, and progressivism, more generally), so too does that same sword fall on those members of the left who act like Andrea Dworkin, and in so doing, disgrace progressivism. But, worse than simply looking like ostentatious blowhards, these are people who actively drive people into the Republican party, who *hate* people on the left, because their perception is that all liberals are snide, condescending @ssholes who look down on people who are like them. (And the truth is, that a lot of people on the left do... and I have certainly been no exception, when I was younger.)

Ultimately not everyone is going to agree on all issues. While someone may be generally left or right wing most people have views across the spectrum on different issues. There are few individuals who agree with everything another individual thinks even if generally their ideology is quite similar. A centre left voter gets annoyed with socialists driving centrists to the right while a socialist gets annoyed with a centre left individuals dragging a mainstream party of what in their view is the right. This is one of the flaws of a 2 party democracy. It is hard for just 2 parties to represent and appeal to everyone's views. I'm sure you notice it is similar for centre right individuals getting annoyed with racists and homophobes driving voters to the left. Ultimately it'd just the nature of politics. Hoping everyone is going to agree is just a fantasy really.

At 12/13/2015 6:04:48 PM, 000ike wrote:There's something arbitrary about addressing this criticism to the left, when this is only one iteration of a pattern tied to the norms of our political discourse.

To the extent that you're right: There are appropriate and inappropriate uses of the terms sexist, racist, and bigoted. These words describe forms of biased inclination, pathologies of thought which preclude objective reasoning.

"Precluding" this notion of "objective reasoning," is missing the point. The point isn't about "objective" reasoning. It's about *how people on the political left interact with each other when they are discussing political issues.* That's discourse, not necessarily "objective reasoning" (if such a thing even exists in political discourse at all).

That's why In such contexts where you've expressed an unpopular opinion that's based on disinterested reasoning and amenable to the same, to call it sexist, racist, or bigoted would be just an empty insult.

"Unpopularity" isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about opinions which *differ* from the orthodoxy. The opinion may be popular and different from the liberal orthodox view; it is not necessary that a view which differs from what these secular PC "priests" be unpopular. So, discussion of what is popular or not is tangential.

The issue is (if you carefully read what I wrote) views which "differ from" (read: are not congruent or in line with) the orthodox view. That's it.

(As an aside, I am flattered by the fact that your use of language attempts to mirror my own. This is a consistent theme of how you write now, and it is not lost on me. Senpai has noticed you.)

People who use those words in such contexts either compensate for a lack of meaningful counterarguments -- they want to rebuke the views expressed even though they lack the evidence and vocabulary to do so -- or they simply don't grasp what the words mean and how they're appropriately applied.

That is a common assumption, and it's wrong. Some people just call names and engage in Andrea Dworkin (not to be confused with Ron Dworkin) style "argumentation" (by "argumentation" I mean "rhetorical assault") because they lack the capacity to do anything else.

But, that's not how the people I'm talking about are using that method. They're using it to reinforce conformity to a particular set of ideas and values, values which are in line with what the mainstream political establishment, and which define (more or less) the scope (by "scope" I mean "the range of ideas which will be considered in such circles") of what is cognizable.

But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite.

If your point with that statement is simply to make the observation that this problem is not unique to the left, then that's fine and good. But, based on the comments which followed afterward, I am reasonably sure that's not the case. In the alternative, it's pretty clear that your objective here was to say "this is not unique to the left, therefore it doesn't matter because the other side does this too." If that was not your point, then this is your opportunity to remedy that communicative error.

But, because it is reasonably clear that that *was* your point, let me remind you that to say that "the guys on the other side are doing this too" does not mean that it's acceptable for the left to be engaged in this kind of nonsense. It's a non-responsive critique to point out that "other people" are doing a bad thing, in response to what your group is doing, to justify the group's engagement in that activity. (I wrote an entire thread about this, in the past.)

So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

If your issue is that my criticism of the left is not unique to the left, then you have entirely missed the broader point of and principal with respect to what I was saying. The fact that some flaw exists on the left does not mean that it is unique to the left; it means that it applies to the left.

It's fine to say "hey, there are also these other problems!" but that's to miss the point of *this* post. The right has its own problems, some of which are similar to, and some of which are different from, those on the left. I make a regular habit of criticizing the right, but that was not the purpose here, as was clearly indicated in my first sentence.

Perhaps it just suits you and your image better if you generalize and attack common use of your own ideology....calling oneself liberal while selectively criticizing exponents of the ideology creates a facade of objectivity.

The fact that you would think that this post is about "me" is, generally, indicative of the fact that you missed the point of what I was saying entirely.

I'll grant that maintaining at least the pretense of independent thinking is a healthy check on the validity of one's own views, but don't think it isn't prone to error.

At 12/13/2015 6:04:48 PM, 000ike wrote:But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite. This kind of brazen simplification is just what happens when you have to competitively market your ideology to a public whose interest, attention, and sympathy requires speaking in easily-to-digest, dramatic and unnuanced terms. So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

What makes the inquisitorial mindset of the left so disturbing is the fact that the 'hotspots' of this brand of fanaticism are college universities. At the heart of universities is the idea of debate, and if more and more activist-minded students are practicing 'no-platforming' towards anyone who disagrees with them on the slightest principle, then debate will die, as will the university system as a whole. Our private system, where students are essentially customers, just exacerbates the whole situation by giving fanatic student unions the power of the purse.

The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

At 12/13/2015 7:56:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

That is probably the best analogy I have ever seen, in any instance, on DDO.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

Most people in the United States had never lived through the phenemenon where after major social reform, all the liberals in whatever country the reform took place turn conservative. It is just how it works.

With things like gay marriage passed among other things, you will slowly begin to see people trend towards conservatism, as the those who continue to remain liberals will continue pushing more radical ideas that were not previously mainstream liberalism.

Eventually those radical ideas will gain traction, and the cycle repeats itself.

At 12/13/2015 9:51:17 PM, BlackFlags wrote:Most people in the United States had never lived through the phenemenon where after major social reform, all the liberals in whatever country the reform took place turn conservative. It is just how it works.

With things like gay marriage passed among other things, you will slowly begin to see people trend towards conservatism, as the those who continue to remain liberals will continue pushing more radical ideas that were not previously mainstream liberalism.

Eventually those radical ideas will gain traction, and the cycle repeats itself.

That just means each generation is more liberal than the last, so people who were liberal for their time appear conservative to the younger generation.

At 12/13/2015 4:47:36 PM, YYW wrote:This post will serve as a brief discussion about what's going on, on the left, and why that's bad.

There are a lot of people in the Democratic party and especially in progressive movements who regard adherence to a strict orthodoxy (i.e. theology of progressivism) as the measure of a person's credibility as a person, and value as a member of that group. Thus, if you disagree, you're a bad person, or a conformist, or a fascist, bigot, racist, sexist, and whatever. This is how the postmodern left operates, and it's how a lot of very juvenile members of the Democratic party (pretty much from high school and college age on) get on with their lives. So, if we differ, in the slightest way, on virtually any topic, well, that's the basis for all kinds of personal attacks, vitriol, outrage and a whole lot of name calling.

Our premier in Ontario [liberal party] got a lot of media attention for calling everyone opposed to her Syrian refugee plan racist. This is commonplace with a lot of uninformed liberals that I know, but the fact that the premier of our province has fallen back to these types of attacks is disheartening to say the least.

At 12/13/2015 6:04:48 PM, 000ike wrote:But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite. This kind of brazen simplification is just what happens when you have to competitively market your ideology to a public whose interest, attention, and sympathy requires speaking in easily-to-digest, dramatic and unnuanced terms. So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

What makes the inquisitorial mindset of the left so disturbing is the fact that the 'hotspots' of this brand of fanaticism are college universities. At the heart of universities is the idea of debate, and if more and more activist-minded students are practicing 'no-platforming' towards anyone who disagrees with them on the slightest principle, then debate will die, as will the university system as a whole. Our private system, where students are essentially customers, just exacerbates the whole situation by giving fanatic student unions the power of the purse.

The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

I don't think the knee-jerk reflex to call arguments racist and bigoted comes out of universities though. It comes out of the media.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 12/13/2015 7:56:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

That is probably the best analogy I have ever seen, in any instance, on DDO.

At 12/13/2015 6:04:48 PM, 000ike wrote:But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite. This kind of brazen simplification is just what happens when you have to competitively market your ideology to a public whose interest, attention, and sympathy requires speaking in easily-to-digest, dramatic and unnuanced terms. So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

What makes the inquisitorial mindset of the left so disturbing is the fact that the 'hotspots' of this brand of fanaticism are college universities. At the heart of universities is the idea of debate, and if more and more activist-minded students are practicing 'no-platforming' towards anyone who disagrees with them on the slightest principle, then debate will die, as will the university system as a whole. Our private system, where students are essentially customers, just exacerbates the whole situation by giving fanatic student unions the power of the purse.

The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

I don't think the knee-jerk reflex to call arguments racist and bigoted comes out of universities though. It comes out of the media.

Not really; the media just makes the mistake (or we can be cynical and say that it's deliberate) of taking social justice stances for granted and reporting on them as fact at worse, and as 'one side of the story' at best. The media, unfortunately, has replaced the pursuit of facts in many cases with the attempt to either spin one narrative to the exclusion of others, or to balance many narratives even though the facts of the case undermine one. But if you want to find the nexus of these beliefs on the regressive/authoritarian left, look at progressive groups on campus. It's where the terrible research, the talking points, the knee-jerk reactions against challenges to orthodoxy, and the political activism originate. The media, willingly or unwillingly, often acts as their mouthpiece, but you won't find a narrative working its way into the media until after it's been formulated in these insular ideological camps.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

For myself there are words that are words that are conversation killers these words currently consist of the -ist words such as racist and sexist and -phobia words such as homophobia and islamphobia. If such words are used in conversation the conversation becomes null and void and the user loses credibility.

Missing from this discussion is the subject of experience, which only comes from time in, of course colleges are liberal. Being young potent and idealistic (liberal) for most will wane as they experiences life. changing the terms of their life. This can be seen in the interactions of DDO members see the difference in the amount of righteousness in someone who is 18 and someone 55.

Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan KrusemarkIts easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers

At 12/13/2015 6:04:48 PM, 000ike wrote:But this really isn't different from the general misapplication of 'socialist,' 'muslim,' 'anti-christian' and 'anti-american' among conservative circles. Those words serve the same compensatory function and evince the same lack of understanding. They're used just as frequently among uninformed right-wing zealots as they are among the elite. This kind of brazen simplification is just what happens when you have to competitively market your ideology to a public whose interest, attention, and sympathy requires speaking in easily-to-digest, dramatic and unnuanced terms. So what's the difference? What's unique to the left?

What makes the inquisitorial mindset of the left so disturbing is the fact that the 'hotspots' of this brand of fanaticism are college universities. At the heart of universities is the idea of debate, and if more and more activist-minded students are practicing 'no-platforming' towards anyone who disagrees with them on the slightest principle, then debate will die, as will the university system as a whole. Our private system, where students are essentially customers, just exacerbates the whole situation by giving fanatic student unions the power of the purse.

The 'true believers' on the right are seething in half-empty pews and backwoods towns. On the left, they're festering at the very heart of our once-illustrious centers of higher learning. It's the difference between a tumor on the elbow and a tumor in the brain.

I don't think the knee-jerk reflex to call arguments racist and bigoted comes out of universities though. It comes out of the media.

Transmitting politically correct attitudes to the general public is the job of the media since that's where most people get their information. But journalists are trained at universities and are no doubt influenced by the things they hear there. The role of academia cannot be ignored. Of course, not all academics adopt the PC orthodoxy, and many even take time to speak out against it, like Steven Pinker. But for every Steven Pinker, there are 10 social justice warrior disciples trying to corrupt the minds of their students with wimpy nonsense.

At 12/13/2015 4:47:36 PM, YYW wrote:This post will serve as a brief discussion about what's going on, on the left, and why that's bad.

There are a lot of people in the Democratic party and especially in progressive movements who regard adherence to a strict orthodoxy (i.e. theology of progressivism) as the measure of a person's credibility as a person, and value as a member of that group. Thus, if you disagree, you're a bad person, or a conformist, or a fascist, bigot, racist, sexist, and whatever. This is how the postmodern left operates, and it's how a lot of very juvenile members of the Democratic party (pretty much from high school and college age on) get on with their lives. So, if we differ, in the slightest way, on virtually any topic, well, that's the basis for all kinds of personal attacks, vitriol, outrage and a whole lot of name calling.

For example, if I express any view other than that blacks are the perpetual victims of white aggression, I am a racist. If I have doubts that "rape culture" even exists, I'm a sexist. And to the extent that I deviate from any of these idiotic politically correct narratives (which are pretty much quasi-theological constructs that the intellectual left has erected to ensure ideological conformity, enforced by all kinds of hostility from members of the group), then I'm a bigot. (Note: these are people whose argumentative methods are functionally indistinguishable from, for example, the Catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition; i.e. if you don't agree with me, then you're just a terrible, horrible human being who will be damned to hell for all eternity, except, in this instance, it's not damnation that's on the line, but the "purgatory" of being subject to outlandish hostility as a result.) We're going to call this the "Andrea Dworkin" method of argumentation.

There are many members on this site like this. I can think of a few off the top of my head who I've interacted with, and talking politics with them is impossible because they go into "outrage mode" whenever you express any view that is incongruent with theirs. That modality of human interaction is counterproductive to progressivism's goals and objectives, and is therefore irrational.

The reason why that modality of interaction is unacceptable is because it drives people away from the left, and drives them into the Republican party. People like this are the reason, for example, that poor whites vote Republican at astonishingly high rates. People like that are why "liberal" became an unspeakable word in the 1990s, and why the Democratic party has such a hard time maintaining influence on the groups that it, on a rational level, should never even have to compete for.

It's also just totally a terrible way to interact with other people. I mean, if you can't interact with people without mocking their views (and there are some people's views who should be mocked, i.e. *actual* fascists, or *actual* bigots, like the WBC), and if you draw idiotic analogies between *actual* fascists or bigots and, like, average normal people engaged in political discourse then two things are going to happen: (1) no one is going to take you seriously outside your group, and (2) everyone outside your group is going to think you're just a blowhard who is out of touch with reality.

Just as I have derided such movements as #blacklivesmatter (for being spoiled, inarticulate children who conflate actual oppression--i.e. police brutality--with feigned oppression--i.e. Mizzou--whose methods disgrace the civil rights movement, specifically, and progressivism, more generally), so too does that same sword fall on those members of the left who act like Andrea Dworkin, and in so doing, disgrace progressivism. But, worse than simply looking like ostentatious blowhards, these are people who actively drive people into the Republican party, who *hate* people on the left, because their perception is that all liberals are snide, condescending @ssholes who look down on people who are like them. (And the truth is, that a lot of people on the left do... and I have certainly been no exception, when I was younger.)

Wanting to be better and superior to others is something we all feel. You can't stop those feelings. The best you can do is wrestle with them and HOPE you've won at the end of the day. But they never go away.

Here's something to chew on: Even your most cherished heroes were privately condescending. Does that make them bad?

What you're mistake is, YYW, is that you're using the philosophy of Jesus to judge others. Well, has it ever occurred to you that Jesus's philosophy is somewhat unrealistic?

It's an interesting perception of what good and evil are, but I think it can also cause a lot of confusion and avoidable broken hearts. People are who they are, and I admit I can be a nasty person at times. People are who they are and there's bad features about all of us that will never be erased.

At 12/14/2015 12:25:57 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:What you're mistake is, YYW, is that you're using the philosophy of Jesus to judge others. Well, has it ever occurred to you that Jesus's philosophy is somewhat unrealistic?

It's an interesting perception of what good and evil are, but I think it can also cause a lot of confusion and avoidable broken hearts. People are who they are, and I admit I can be a nasty person at times. People are who they are and there's bad features about all of us that will never be erased.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about, and this is completely non-responsive to my post. So, no, I made no mistake.